I have a class like this:
public FooRepo : IFooRepo
{
public FooRepo(IDbContextFactory factory)
{
context = factory.GetContext();
}
}
In my app I register everything with LifeStyle.PerWebRequest,
but now I need to call one Method which uses this IFooRepo like this (because it's gonna take about an hour):
{
...
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s => RequestReport(number));
...
}
private void RequestReport(int number)
{
// IFooRepo needed here
}
the problem is that I need this IFooRepo with PerWebRequest lifestyle most of the time, and I needed here in the thread also to stay alive, also it has a dependency IDbContextFactory which I don't know if I need to register it also in a different way
well then register your FooRepo twice and setup service override for whoever uses in on the ThreadPool to use the other component. Easy.
Related
I'm using Castle Windsor, which generally rocks, however I want it to call a method on my component when it is created and seem to have hit a limitation with OnCreate. For exaxmple:
interface IService1
{
void op1();
}
interface IService2
{
void op2();
}
class MyComponent : IService1, IService2
{
public void Init() // not part of either service
{
}
public void op1()
{
}
public void op2()
{
}
}
// I want to call the component's Init() method when it's created, which isn't part of the service contract
container.Register(Component.For<IService1, IService2>().ImplementedBy<MyComponent>().OnCreate(s => s.Init()));
// I could call something from IService1
container.Register(Component.For<IService1, IService2>().ImplementedBy<MyComponent>().OnCreate(s => s.op1()));
// But I can't call anything from any of the other services
container.Register(Component.For<IService1, IService2>().ImplementedBy<MyComponent>().OnCreate(s => s.op2()));
The first registration won't compile, complaining that it "cannot resolve symbol Init" because the instance passed to the delegate is of type IService1. OnCreate seems a bit limited to me, as in the third case when there are multiple services exposed it only allows you to bind to the first one you declare. I'd have to swap IService1 and IService2 around in order to call op2, but that's just moving the problem around.
Why isn't the type passed in the delegate that of the component being registered? Then I'd be free to call whatever method I like. Is there a way around this? Assume I can't put the Init() code in the component's constructor.
Don't be constrained by the strongly typed nature of C#
Yes, the way the API is constructed it's based off of the first service of the component but you can always cast it down to its actual type (or a secondary service)
.OnCreate(s => ((MyComponent)s).Init())
Alternatively, implement Castle.Core.IInitializable or System.ComponentModel.ISupportInitialize (if you don't want your components to reference Windsor) and then you won't need .OnCreate() at all.
For future reference, here's the relevant documentation.
My application uses the "SignalR" client/server comms framework. If you aren't familiar with it, the server-side app typically contains one or more "hub" classes (similar to asmx web services), each providing methods that can be called by a client. During startup, the client needs to first create a connection, then create a "proxy" for each hub that it will need to talk to, e.g.:-
var hubConnection = new HubConnection("http://...");
var fooHubProxy = hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("FooHub");
var barHubProxy = hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("BarHub");
...etc...
The string parameter passed to CreateHubProxy() is the name of the server-side hub class. The method return type is IHubProxy.
It feels like I should be able to utilise Windsor here, but I'm struggling to find a solution. My first thought was to instantiate the hub proxies and register these instances with Windsor (by name), e.g.
var fooHubProxy = hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("FooHub");
container.Register(Component.For<IHubProxy>().Instance(fooHubProxy).LifestyleSingleton().Named("FooHub"));
...etc...
The problem is that when a class needs a hub proxy, the only way to resolve it by name is to use service locator pattern, which isn't recommended. What other Windsor features (e.g. typed factories, etc.) might be useful here?
Edit
I've just found Windsor's .UsingFactoryMethod, and am wondering if this would work, to simplify hub registration:
container.Register(Component.For<IHubProxy>()
.UsingFactoryMethod((kernel, context) => hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("FooHub"))
.LifestyleSingleton()
.Named("FooHub"));
I guess I still have the problem of how to resolve by name though.
Two years later, but I have a more elegant solution for other people that stummble accross this problem too.
It is possible to use TypedFactory facility and adapt it to you needs like here.
first create the factory interface (only! no need for the actual implementation, castle will take care of that):
public interface IHubProxyFactory
{
IHubProxy GetProxy(string proxyName);
}
Now we need a class that extend the default typed facotory and retreives the component's name from the input (proxyName):
class NamedTypeFactory : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override string GetComponentName(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
string componentName = null;
if (arguments!= null && arguments.Length > 0)
{
componentName = arguments[0] as string;
}
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(componentName))
componentName = base.GetComponentName(method, arguments);
return componentName;
}
}
And then register the factory with castle and specify that your NamedTypeFactory will be used:
Component.For<IHubProxyFactory>().AsFactory(new NamedTypeFactory())
Now every class can get the factory interface in its constructor:
public class SomeClass
{
private IHubProxy _fooHub;
private IHubProxy _barHub;
public SomeClass(IHubProxyFactory hubProxyFactory)
{
_fooHub = hubProxyFactory.GetProxy("FooHub");
_barHub = hubProxyFactory.GetProxy("BarHub");
}
}
Okay, I think I've found a possible solution, partly using the approach detailed here which shows how it is possible to register Func<>s with Windsor.
First, I register a delegate (Func<>) that uses the container to resolve by name:-
Container.Register(Component.For<Func<string, IHubProxy>>()
.Instance(name => Container.Resolve<IHubProxy>(name))
.LifestyleSingleton());
Think of this as an IHubProxy "factory".
Next, I register my hub proxies as detailed in my original question:-
container.Register(Component.For<IHubProxy>()
.UsingFactoryMethod((kernel, context) => hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("FooHub"))
.LifestyleSingleton()
.Named("FooHub"));
container.Register(Component.For<IHubProxy>()
.UsingFactoryMethod((kernel, context) => hubConnection.CreateHubProxy("BarHub"))
.LifestyleSingleton()
.Named("BarHub"));
Here is an example of a class that needs instances of the hub proxies:-
public class SomeClass
{
private IHubProxy _fooHub;
private IHubProxy _barHub;
public SomeClass(Func<string, IHubProxy> hubProxyFactory)
{
_fooHub = hubProxyFactory("FooHub");
_barHub = hubProxyFactory("BarHub");
}
}
Untried so far, but it looks promising. It's a clever solution but injecting the Func<> feels a little hacky, so I would still be keen to hear of other possible solutions to my problem.
I just used a similar method to yours. I use a typed Factory. Advantage is I have type safety for my hubs. Registering the hubs is the same. The rest differs a bit but is technical the same.
IServiceFactory {
IHubProxy GetFooHub();
IHubProxy GetBarHub();
}
And Registration:
Container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
Container.Register(Component.For<IServiceFactory>().AsFactory());
Usage:
public class SomeClass
{
private IHubProxy _fooHub;
private IHubProxy _barHub;
public SomeClass(IServiceFactry hubProxyFactory)
{
_fooHub = hubProxyFactory.GetFooHub();
_barHub = hubProxyFactory.GetBarHub();
}
}
Btw. Factory.Get"Name"() resolves by name.
I want to auto register all interfaces which name ends with "Service" and also doesn't have concrete implementations to be resolved to a generated type/proxy (which off course differs per interface).
So when I want to resolve IContractService I want it to return a proxied object. I got this idea from this article where they implemented it in some way with Castle Windsor.
What would be the structuremap approach for achieving this. I tried all kind of things with custom conventions and all but I can't get my head around it.
I fixed this by using Castle's Dynamic Proxy and a StructureMap convention. BTW. I also renamed some of the classes mentioned in the article.
public class InfraRegistry : Registry
{
public InfraRegistry()
{
For<IClientProviderFactory>().Use<WcfClientProviderProviderFactory>();
Scan(scan =>
{
scan.AssemblyContainingType<MidleWareServiceConvention>();
scan.Convention<MidleWareServiceConvention>();
});
}
}
public class MidleWareServiceConvention : IRegistrationConvention
{
private readonly ProxyGenerator _proxyGen = new ProxyGenerator();
public void Process(Type type, Registry registry)
{
if (type.IsInterface && type.Name.EndsWith("Service", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
registry.For(type)
.HybridHttpOrThreadLocalScoped()
.Use(
context =>
_proxyGen.CreateInterfaceProxyWithoutTarget(type,
new WcfInterceptor(
context.GetInstance<IClientProviderFactory>())));
}
}
}
This is a similar pattern to ones stated elsewhere and detailed in this blog post. I have this working using Windsor 2.5.4 pretty much as stated in the blogpost, but decided to switch to using Windsor 3. When I did this I noticed that the memory usage of the application go up over time - I guessed this would be that components were'nt being released.
There were a couple of modifications to the code in the blogpost, which may have caused the behaviour to differ.
Here is my AutoRelease interceptor (straight out of the blogpost, here for convenience and the lazy ;) )
[Transient]
public class AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
private static readonly MethodInfo Execute = typeof(IDocumentHandler).GetMethod("Process");
private readonly IKernel _kernel;
public AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor(IKernel kernel)
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (invocation.Method != Execute)
{
invocation.Proceed();
return;
}
try
{
invocation.Proceed();
}
finally
{
_kernel.ReleaseComponent(invocation.Proxy);
}
}
}
One of my deviations from the blog post is the selector that the typed factory uses:-
public class ProcessorSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override Func<IKernelInternal, IReleasePolicy, object> BuildFactoryComponent(MethodInfo method,
string componentName,
Type componentType,
IDictionary additionalArguments)
{
return new MyDocumentHandlerResolver(componentName,
componentType,
additionalArguments,
FallbackToResolveByTypeIfNameNotFound,
GetType()).Resolve;
}
protected override string GetComponentName(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
return null;
}
protected override Type GetComponentType(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
var message = arguments[0];
var handlerType = typeof(IDocumentHandler<>).MakeGenericType(message.GetType());
return handlerType;
}
}
What might be noticeable is that I do not use the default resolver. (This is where, perhaps, the problem lies...).
public class MyDocumentHandlerResolver : TypedFactoryComponentResolver
{
public override object Resolve(IKernelInternal kernel, IReleasePolicy scope)
{
return kernel.Resolve(componentType, additionalArguments, scope);
}
}
(I omitted the ctor for brevity- nothing special happens there, it just calls the base ctor).
The reason I did this was because the default resolver would try to resolve by name and not by Type- and fail. In this case, I know I only ever need to resolve by type, so I just overrode the Resolve method.
The final piece of the puzzle will be the installer.
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>()
.Register(
Component.For<AutoReleaseHandlerInterceptor>(),
Component.For<ProcessorSelector>().ImplementedBy<ProcessorSelector>(),
Classes.FromAssemblyContaining<MessageHandler>()
.BasedOn(typeof(IDocumentHandler<>))
.WithService.Base()
.Configure(c => c.LifeStyle.Is(LifestyleType.Transient)),
Component.For<IDocumentHandlerFactory>()
.AsFactory(c => c.SelectedWith<ProcessorSelector>()));
Stepping through the code, the interceptor is called and the finally clause is executed (e.g. I didn't get the method name wrong). However, the component does not seem to be released (using the performance counter shows this. Each invocation of the factory's create method increases the counter by one).
So far, my workaround has been to add a void Release(IDocumentHandler handler) method to my factory interface, and then after it executes the handler.Process() method, it explicitly releases the handler instance, and this seems to do the job- the performance counter goes up, and as the processing is done, it goes down).
Here is the factory:
public interface IDocumentHandlerFactory
{
IDocumentHandler GetHandlerForDocument(IDocument document);
void Release(IDocumentHandler handler);
}
And here is how I use it:
IDocumentHandlerFactory handler = _documentHandlerFactory.GetHandlerForDocument(document);
handler.Process();
_documentHandlerFactory.Release(handler);
Doing the Release explicitly therefore negates the need for the interceptor, but my real question is why this behaviour differs between the releases?
Note to self:- RTFM. Or in fact, read the Breakingchanges.txt file.
Here's the change that affects this behaviour (emphasis is mine):-
change - IReleasePolicy interface has a new method: IReleasePolicy
CreateSubPolicy(); usage of sub-policies changes how typed factories
handle out-of-band-release of components (see description)
impact - medium fixability - easy
description - This was added as an attempt to enable more fine grained
lifetime scoping (mostly for per-typed-factory right now, but in the
future also say - per-window in client app). As a side-effect of that
(and change to release policy behavior described above) it is no
longer possible to release objects resolved via typed factories, using
container.Release. As the objects are now tracked only in the scope
of the factory they will be released only if a call to factory
releasing method is made, or when the factory itself is released.
fix - Method should return new object that exposes the same behavior
as the 'parent' usually it is just best to return object of the same
type (as the built-in release policies do).
I didn't find the fix suggestion terribly helpful in my instance, however my solution in the question is what you should actually do (release using the factory). I'll leave it up in case anyone else has this (non) issue.
A database application that I'm currently working on, stores all sorts of settings in the database. Most of those settings are there to customize certain business rules, but there's also some other stuff in there.
The app contains objects that specifically do a certain task, e.g., a certain complicated calculation. Those non-UI objects are unit-tested, but also need access to lots of those global settings. The way we've implemented this right now, is by giving the objects properties that are filled by the Application Controller at runtime. When testing, we create the objects in the test and fill in values for testing (not from the database).
This works better, in any case much better than having all those objects need some global Settings object --- that of course effectively makes unit testing impossible :) Disadvantage can be that you sometimes need to set a dozen of properties, or that you need to let those properties 'percolate' into sub-objects.
So the general question is: how do you provide access to global application settings in your projects, without the need for global variables, while still being able to unit test your code? This must be a problem that's been solved 100's of times...
(Note: I'm not too much of an experienced programmer, as you'll have noticed; but I love to learn! And of course, I've already done research into this topic, but I'm really looking for some first-hand experiences)
You could use Martin Fowlers ServiceLocator pattern. In php it could look like this:
class ServiceLocator {
private static $soleInstance;
private $globalSettings;
public static function load($locator) {
self::$soleInstance = $locator;
}
public static function globalSettings() {
if (!isset(self::$soleInstance->globalSettings)) {
self::$soleInstance->setGlobalSettings(new GlobalSettings());
}
return self::$soleInstance->globalSettings;
}
}
Your production code then initializes the service locator like this:
ServiceLocator::load(new ServiceLocator());
In your test-code, you insert your mock-settings like this:
ServiceLocator s = new ServiceLocator();
s->setGlobalSettings(new MockGlobalSettings());
ServiceLocator::load(s);
It's a repository for singletons that can be exchanged for testing purposes.
I like to model my configuration access off of the Service Locator pattern. This gives me a single point to get any configuration value that I need and by putting it outside the application in a separate library, it allows reuse and testability. Here is some sample code, I am not sure what language you are using, but I wrote it in C#.
First I create a generic class that will models my ConfigurationItem.
public class ConfigurationItem<T>
{
private T item;
public ConfigurationItem(T item)
{
this.item = item;
}
public T GetValue()
{
return item;
}
}
Then I create a class that exposes public static readonly variables for the configuration item. Here I am just reading the ConnectionStringSettings from a config file, which is just xml. Of course for more items, you can read the values from any source.
public class ConfigurationItems
{
public static ConfigurationItem<ConnectionStringSettings> ConnectionSettings = new ConfigurationItem<ConnectionStringSettings>(RetrieveConnectionString());
private static ConnectionStringSettings RetrieveConnectionString()
{
// In .Net, we store our connection string in the application/web config file.
// We can access those values through the ConfigurationManager class.
return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ConnectionKey"]];
}
}
Then when I need a ConfigurationItem for use, I call it like this:
ConfigurationItems.ConnectionSettings.GetValue();
And it will return me a type safe value, which I can then cache or do whatever I want with.
Here's a sample test:
[TestFixture]
public class ConfigurationItemsTest
{
[Test]
public void ShouldBeAbleToAccessConnectionStringSettings()
{
ConnectionStringSettings item = ConfigurationItems.ConnectionSettings.GetValue();
Assert.IsNotNull(item);
}
}
Hope this helps.
Usually this is handled by an ini file or XML configuration file. Then you just have a class that reads the setting when neeed.
.NET has this built in with the ConfigurationManager classes, but it's quite easy to implement, just read text files, or load XML into DOM or parse them by hand in code.
Having config files in the database is ok, but it does tie you to the database, and creates an extra dependancy for your app that ini/xml files solve.
I did this:
public class MySettings
{
public static double Setting1
{ get { return SettingsCache.Instance.GetDouble("Setting1"); } }
public static string Setting2
{ get { return SettingsCache.Instance.GetString("Setting2"); } }
}
I put this in a separate infrastructure module to remove any issues with circular dependencies.
Doing this I am not tied to any specific configuration method, and have no strings running havoc in my applications code.